DOCSLIB.ORG

Zuni Fleabane (Erigeron Rhizomatus)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zuni Fleabane (Erigeron Rhizomatus) Zuni Fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office Albuquerque, New Mexico 5-YEAR REVIEW Species reviewed: Zuni Fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Reviewers...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review ................................................................... 1 1.3 Background................................................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this review................................... 1 1.3.2 Listing History .................................................................................................. 2 1.3.3 Associated rulemakings .................................................................................... 2 1.3.4 Review history .................................................................................................. 2 1.3.5 Species' recovery priority number at start of review ........................................ 2 1.3.6 Recovery plan ................................................................................................... 2 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy ........................... 2 2.1.1 Is the species under review a vertebrate?.......................................................... 2 2.2 Recovery Criteria .........................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Does the species have a final, approved recovery plan containing objective, measurable criteria? .......................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Adequacy of recovery criteria........................................................................... 3 2.2.2.1 Do the recovery criteria reflect the best available and most up-to- date information on the biology of the species and its habitat?......... 3 2.2.3 List the recovery criteria as they appear in the recovery plan, and discuss how each criterion has or has not been met, citing information:...................... 3 2.3 Updated Information and Current Species Status......................................................... 5 2.3.1 Biology and Habitat .......................................................................................... 5 2.3.1.1 New information on the species' biology and life history ................. 5 2.3.1.2 Abundance, trends, and demographic features .................................. 5 2.3.1.3 Genetics and genetic variation........................................................... 6 2.3.1.4 Taxonomic classification ................................................................... 7 2.3.1.5 Spatial distribution............................................................................. 7 2.3.1.6 Habitat or ecosystem conditions ........................................................ 7 2.3.1.7 Other .................................................................................................. 8 2.3.2 Five-factor analysis........................................................................................... 8 2.3.2.1 Present or threatened desctruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range ......................................................................... 8 2.3.2.2 Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes........................................................................ 10 2.3.2.3 Disease or predation......................................................................... 10 2.3.2.4 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms............................... 10 2.3.2.5 Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence........................................................................................... 11 2.4 Synthesis ..................................................................................................................... 11 ii 3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Recommended Classification...................................................................................... 13 3.2 New Recovery Priority Number. ................................................................................ 13 3.3 Listing and Reclassification Priority Number............................................................. 13 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS ......................................................... 14 5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 15 iii 5-YEAR REVIEW Zuni Fleabane/Erigeron rhizomatus 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers: Lead Regional or Headquarters Office: Region 2, Southwest Contact: Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Threatened and Endangered Species Division, 505/248-6641; Wendy Brown, Recovery Coordinator, 505/248-6664. Lead Field Office: New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office Contact: Lyle Lewis, Recovery Coordinator, 505-761-4714. Cooperating Field Office(s): Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Contact: Mima Falk, Botanist, 520-670-4550. 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) conducts status reviews of species on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.12) as required by section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Service provided notice of this status review via the Federal Register (70 FR 5460) requesting information on the status of the Zuni fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus). This review was conducted by a team of biologists from the Service’s Southwest Regional Office, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (NMESFO), New Mexico State Forestry Division (NMSF), and University of New Mexico (UNM). Robert Sivinski, NMSF Botanist, was contracted through a section 6 grant to gather the relevant information and prepare a draft of the review. The preliminary draft was reviewed for scientific accuracy by Phil Tonne, Botanist for Natural Heritage New Mexico at UNM, and Daniela Roth, Endangered Species Botanist for the Navajo Nation. The final review and recommendations were prepared by the NMESFO recovery biologist. 1.3 Background: 1.3.1 FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this review: 70 FR 5460- 5463, Wednesday, February 2, 2005. 1 1.3.2 Listing history Original Listing FR notice: 50 FR 16680-16682 Date listed: Friday, April 26, 1985 Entity listed: Species Classification: Threatened 1.3.3 Associated rulemakings: None 1.3.4 Review History: There have been no status reviews, biological opinions, or other large scale analysis of this species since it was listed as threatened. There is a memorandum in the file suggesting that the species should be considered for delisting in 1994 or 1995 based on additional populations found since the species was listed. 1.3.5 Species’ Recovery Priority Number at start of 5-year review: 8. This priority number indicates a species with a moderate degree of threat and high potential for recovery. 1.3.6 Recovery Plan or Outline Name of plan or outline: Recovery Plan for Zuni Fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus) Date issued: September 30, 1988 Dates of previous revisions, if applicable: The recovery plan has not been revised. 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy 2.1.1 Is the species under review a vertebrate? ___ Yes, go to section 2.1.2. _X_ No, go to section 2.2. 2 2.2 Recovery Criteria 2.2.1 Does the species have a final, approved recovery plan1 containing objective, measurable criteria? _X_ Yes, continue to section 2.2.2. ___ No, go to section 2.3. 2.2.2 Adequacy of recovery criteria. 2.2.2.1 Do the recovery criteria reflect the best available and most up-to date information on the biology of the species and its habitat? ___ Yes, go to section 2.2.2.2. _X_ No, go to section 2.2.3. 2.2.3 List the recovery criteria as they appear in the recovery plan, and discuss how each criterion has or has not been met, citing information: The recovery plan contains the following delisting criteria: • Complete a survey of all potential habitat of Zuni fleabane. • Develop and implement a habitat management plan and install permanent monitoring plots within several populations of Zuni fleabane. • A demonstrated long-term stability (or increase) in population levels and habitat from the monitoring plots, and a continued assurance that the habitat of Zuni fleabane will not be threatened by mining exploration, leasing, or development. Criteria as they relate to the 5-listing factors: • Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range: All three delisting criteria are relevant to this listing factor. • Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes: Not relevant. • Disease or predation: Not relevant. • Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: Not relevant. • Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence: No documentation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Cibola National Forest and Grasslands
    Chapter 1: Introduction In Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3 Bruce Vander Lee, Ruth Smith, and Joanna Bate The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We summarized existing regional-scale biological and ecological assessment information from Arizona and New Mexico for use in the development of Forest Plans for the eleven National Forests in USDA Forest Service Region 3 (Region 3). Under the current Planning Rule, Forest Plans are to be strategic documents focusing on ecological, economic, and social sustainability. In addition, Region 3 has identified restoration of the functionality of fire-adapted systems as a central priority to address forest health issues. Assessments were selected for inclusion in this report based on (1) relevance to Forest Planning needs with emphasis on the need to address ecosystem diversity and ecological sustainability, (2) suitability to address restoration of Region 3’s major vegetation systems, and (3) suitability to address ecological conditions at regional scales. We identified five assessments that addressed the distribution and current condition of ecological and biological diversity within Region 3. We summarized each of these assessments to highlight important ecological resources that exist on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico: • Extent and distribution of potential natural vegetation types in Arizona and New Mexico • Distribution and condition of low-elevation grasslands in Arizona • Distribution of stream reaches with native fish occurrences in Arizona • Species richness and conservation status attributes for all species on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico • Identification of priority areas for biodiversity conservation from Ecoregional Assessments from Arizona and New Mexico Analyses of available assessments were completed across all management jurisdictions for Arizona and New Mexico, providing a regional context to illustrate the biological and ecological importance of National Forests in Region 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Survey Report DJR Operating Proposed WC 21-1 Carson Well
    Plant Survey Report DJR Operating Proposed WC 21-1 Carson Well Project SW/4 Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 12 West San Juan County, New Mexico April 18, 2018 Prepared by Celia Cook 37 Verano Loop Santa Fe, NM 87508 INTRODUCTION DJR Operating (DJR) proposes to drill up to eight wells on a 435’ x 460’ well pad and construct length of gas pipeline within a 40 foot Right-of-Way (ROW) that extends approximately 19 feet beyond the proposed well pad approximately 23 miles northwest of Nageezi on Bureau of Land Management Farmington Field Office (FFO) administered lands in in San Juan County, New Mexico. The project is collectively called the WC 21-1 Carson Well Project. The proposed project would disturb approximately 6.878 acres, including a 50-foot area around the proposed well pad. Of those acres, approximately 4.069 would be new disturbance, while 0.970 of those acres are within the footprint of existing oil and gas disturbances. The legal location for the project is the SW ¼ of Section 21, T. 25 North R. 12 West within the Carson Trading Post NW 7.5 minute, USGS 7.5” quadrangle. Purpose of this Report This botanical survey report discusses the results of a botanical survey of the proposed project area and the potential for disturbance to federal and state listed plant species and designated critical habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 USC 1531 et seq.), the corresponding New Mexico State Endangered Plant Species List (Section 75-6-1 NMSA 1978, EMNRD 2017), and the New Mexico Bureau of Land Management State Office’s list of sensitive species (NMSO BLM) that have the potential to occur in San Juan County and in the vicinity of the proposed WC 21-1 Carson Well project area.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Biological Assessment for the Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program in New Mexico
    2020 Biological Assessment For the Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program in New Mexico 01/24/2020 Prepared by USDA, APHIS, PPQ 270 South 17th Street Las Cruces, NM 88005 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (BA) FOR STATE CONSULTATION AND CONFERENCE FOR 2020 GH/MC PROGRAMS IN NEW MEXICO 2020 Biological Assessment for the Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program, New Mexico 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), in conjunction with other Federal agencies, State departments of agriculture, land management groups, and private individuals, is planning to conduct grasshopper control programs in New Mexico in 2020. This document is intended as state-wide consultation and conference with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding the APHIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program. Beginning in 1987, APHIS has consulted with the FWS on a national level for the Rangeland Grasshopper Cooperative Management Program. Biological Opinions (BO) were issued annually by FWS from 1987 through 1995 for the national program. A letter dated October 3, 1995 from FWS to APHIS concurred with buffers and other measures agreed to by APHIS for New Mexico and superseded all previous consultations. Since then, funding constraints and other considerations have drastically reduced grasshopper/Mormon cricket suppression activities. APHIS is requesting initiation of informal consultation for the implementation of the 2020 Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program on rangeland in New Mexico. Our determinations of effect for listed species, proposed candidate species, critical habitat, and proposed critical habitat are based on the October 3, 1995 FWS letter, the analysis provided in the 2019 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for APHIS suppression activities in 17 western states, and local discussions with FWS.
    [Show full text]
  • Navajo Nation Species Accounts
    TOC Page |i PREFACE: NESL SPECIES ACCOUNTS Welcome to Version 4.20 of the Navajo Nation Endangered Species List Species Accounts which were produced to accompany The Navajo Nation’s February 13, 2020 revision to the Navajo Endangered Species List. The order of Accounts follows the February 2020 revision of the NESL, a copy of which is enclosed for reference. These Accounts were developed and distributed by the Navajo Natural Heritage Program, of the Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife, to help planners and biologists answer basic questions about species of concern during project planning. Your constructive comments are encouraged. Species Accounts are preliminary tools for project planning. Their target audiences are project planners, and biologists not familiar with: 1) species’ life histories and habitat in this region; and 2) Tribal and Federal protection requirements. Their purpose is to provide clear-cut information so that basic questions can be answered early in the planning process. Therefore, they should be reviewed as soon as potential species for the project area are identified. Accounts will prove useful early in the planning process, but they should be used as a quick-reference anytime. If protected species are found then more research and likely coordination with the Department will be necessary. At the end of each account is a short bibliography for planning the details of surveys, and answering more in-depth questions. For planning surveys and developing avoidance/mitigation measures, Accounts no longer distinguish between required and recommended activities; i.e. the terms ‘suggested survey method’ or ‘recommended avoidance’ are not used in V 4.20.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Risk Assessment
    Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the Kaibab National Forest: Species Diversity Report Ver. 1.2 Prepared by: Mikele Painter and Valerie Stein Foster Kaibab National Forest For: Kaibab National Forest Plan Revision Analysis 22 December 2008 SpeciesDiversity-Report-ver-1.2.doc 22 December 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 PART I: Species Diversity.............................................................................................................. 1 Species List ................................................................................................................................. 1 Criteria .................................................................................................................................... 2 Assessment Sources................................................................................................................ 3 Screening Results.................................................................................................................... 4 Habitat Associations and Initial Species Groups........................................................................ 8 Species associated with ecosystem diversity characteristics of terrestrial vegetation or aquatic systems ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The New Mexico Botanist, Issue No. 2
    The New Mexico Botanist, Issue No. 2 January 2, 1996 A List of Master's These and Ph.D. Dissertations from NMSU and UNM Relating to Floristics and Taxonomy by David Bleakly, 3813 Monroe NE, Albuquerque, NM 87110 At least 43 theses and dissertations from New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico relating to floristics and taxonomy have been written since graduate programs began at these institutions. Many other studies dealing with vegetation, ethnobotany, reproduction, evolution, remediation, ecology, and related topics have been completed, but are not listed here. The criteria for inclusion in this list are relatively narrow. The studies must be 1) a flora of a discrete area (e.g., Columbus 1988), or 2) concerned with comparisons within or between groups of plants (e.g., Loomis 1983, Nisbet 1942), or 3) related to rare plants within the state (e.g., Burks 1994). The purposes of this list are to bring to light some of these useful and possibly unknown documents and to contribute to a future bibliography of New Mexico floristics. Copies of the theses or dissertations are found in the libraries of the respective institutions. New Mexico State University Burks, Kelly Adele. 1994. The effects of population size and density on the pollination biology of a threatened thistle (Cirsium vinaceum). MS Thesis. Columbus, J. Travis. 1988. Flora of Cooke’s Range, southwestern New Mexico. MS Thesis. [Luna County] Fox, William E. 1993. A field guide to selected New Mexico locoweeds and milkvetches. MS Thesis. [19 species of toxic Astragalus and Oxytropis] Leiva, Carlos M. 1985.
    [Show full text]
  • Erigeron Rhizomatus Survey and Status Report
    Erigeron rhizomatus Survey and Status Report for The Navajo Nation Summer 2004 Kyle Christie Deliverables 1. A written report of the status and abundance of Erigeron rhizomatus on the Navajo Nation. Included here. 2. A digital version of the written report and a digital version of all associated photographs. Included here. 3. Voucher specimens for each newly discovered population of Erigeron rhizomatus on the Navajo Nation. Distributed directly to the Navajo Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). 3. Voucher collections for all associated vegetation collected on the Navajo Nation during the duration of the survey. Distributed directly to the NNHP. 4. Digital coverage maps for all populations of Erigeron rhizomatus on the Navajo Nation. Distributed directly to the NNHP. 5. NNHP Element Occurrence Records (EORs) for all populations of Erigeron rhizomatus on the Navajo Nation. Distributed directly to the NNHP. 6. Additional recommended survey sites for Erigeron rhizomatus. Distributed directly to the NNHP. Erigeron rhizomatus Survey and Status Report Introduction Erigeron rhizomatus Cronq. (Rhizome Fleabane) is a rare, edaphically limited, habitat-specific member of the Asteraceae (Sunflower family). It is Listed Threatened by the Endangered Species Act and has a G2 Global Rank. This ranking indicates that the rare plant has six to twenty known occurrences, or has limited individuals or spatial extent. Arizona and New Mexico State Ranks for the plant are unknown (Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide, n.d.). E. rhizomatus is distinictive from other Erigeron species due to its obligate habitat, its peculiar rhizomatus, clump-forming habit, as well as its nearly glabrous achenes and sparsely pubescent stems and leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • 20080905 Ecol Sustain Rpt Ap
    Appendix B Comprehensive Species List A comprehensive list of species (including plant, macro-lichen, bird, insect, and animal species) that have population or habitat concerns and that are found in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma was developed. This list includes 1,655 species and was developed using: 1. Lists maintained under the Ecological Services Agency of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS 2007a, US FWS 2007b, US FWS 2007c), 2. Species ranks maintained by NatureServe (US FWS 2007b), 3. New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma State lists (NMDGF 2006a, ODWC 2007, TPWD 2007a, CWCS priority lists), 4. Species for which there are local concerns resulting from declines in habitat, population, and/or distribution (ODWC 2005, NMDGF 2006b, TPWD 2007b), 5. Species that are of high public interest, and 6. Species that have emerging issues (such as invasive species). Taxon: A = amphibian, B = bird, C = crustacean, F = fish, In = insect, L = lichen, Lv = liverwort, M = mammal, Mo = moss, Ms = mussel, P = plant, R = reptile, Sp = spider Background Color Green: Are the species found on Cibola National Grasslands Occurs on Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Grasslands? Ammodramus bairdii Baird's sparrow B Yes 1 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle B Yes 2 Vireo bellii Bell's vireo B Yes 3 Athene cunicularia hypugaea Burrowing Owl B Yes 4 Aimophila cassinii Cassin's sparrow B Yes 5 Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk B Yes 6 Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle B Yes 7 Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow B Yes 8 Picoides villosus Hairy woodpecker B Yes
    [Show full text]
  • NUREG-1910, Vol. 1, Chapter 3, Section 3.5, Northwestern New Mexico Uranium Milling Region
    Description of the Affected Environment 3.5 Northwestern New Mexico Uranium Milling Region 3.5.1 Land Use The Northwestern New Mexico Uranium Milling Region defined in this GEIS lies within the Navajo section of the Colorado Plateau (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004). This region includes McKinley County and the northern part of Cibola County (Figure 3.5-1). Past, current and potential uranium milling operations are found in two areas: (1) the central western part of McKinley County, east of Gallup, New Mexico and (2) the southeastern part of McKinley County and the northern part of Cibola County, east and northeast of Grants, New Mexico. These two areas are parts of the Grants Uranium District (Figure 3.5-2). Details on the geology and soils of this district and its subdivisions are provided in Section 3.5.3. Land distribution statistics in Table 3.5-1 were calculated using the Geographic Information System used to construct the map shown in Figure 3.5-1. The data show that 91 percent of the Northwestern New Mexico Uranium Milling Region is composed of private (surface ownership) land (50 percent), Indian Reservation land (27 percent), and U.S. national forest land (14 percent). Indian Reservation land, administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, comprises Acoma Pueblo, Laguna, Navajo, Ramah Navajo, and Zuni Indian land. Navajo land forms the northwest corner of McKinley County and abuts the northwestern part of the Grants Uranium District. Portions of any potential new ISL facility in this area of this district could fall within Navajo allottees, who own the surface and mineral rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket 08-Afc-13 Date Jun 16 2010
    DOCKET 08-AFC-13 DATE JUN 16 2010 RECD. JUN 18 2010 June 14, 2010 Chris Otahal Wildlife Biologist Bureau of Land Management Barstow Field Office 2601 Barstow Road Barstow, CA 92311 Subject: Late Spring 2010 Botanical Survey of the Calico Solar Project Site URS Project No. 27658189.70010 Dear Mr. Otahal: INTRODUCTION This letter report presents the results of the late spring botanical surveys for the Calico Solar Project (Project), a proposed renewable solar energy facility located 35 miles east of Barstow, California. Botanical surveys were conducted for the Calico Solar Project (Project) site in 2007 and 2008, which were years with well below normal rainfall (10% and 49% of normal for 2007 and 2008, respectively). The botanical surveys for 2007 and 2008 were part of a larger survey area (13,000 acres north of the railroad in 2007 and 27,000 acres that included below the railroad and adjacent ACEC in 2008) that included lands west and east of the project site. Due to the landscape scale of the larger survey areas, the level of effort per acre was lower than the current surveys discussed in this letter report.. In response to above average rainfall events that have occurred during 2010 to date, and CEC requests for additional species mapping, additional botanical surveys were conducted by URS Corporation for the Project site. These surveys incorporated survey protocols published by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (BLM 1996a, BLM 1996b, BLM 2001, and BLM 2009) and reviewed by BLM staff prior to the commencement of botanical surveys on the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Lagoons Pueblo of Zuni Mckinley County, NEW MEXICO
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the SECTION 595 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Lagoons Pueblo of Zuni McKinley County, NEW MEXICO Prepared by U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109 July 2008 Finding of No Significant Impact Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Lagoons Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Albuquerque District, in cooperation with and at the request of the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico, is planning a project to increase the capacity of their secondary wastewater treatment wetlands. The construction work is authorized under Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53; 33 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), as amended. The Act authorizes the Corps to provide assistance for design and construction for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, and rural Utah. The Pueblo of Zuni is the local sponsor. The proposed construction period for the first two wetland cells is nine months, and is expected to start in September 2008. The proposed action involves the construction of 10 secondary treatment wetland cells within a 200-acre fenced area on Pueblo of Zuni land. The overall wetland system was designed to contain a total of 12 wetland cells at this site. Two of the 12 wetland cells already have been constructed. The proposed action would complete the system by adding 10 cells. Of these 10 cells, two cells would be constructed initially, followed by 8 additional cells as funding becomes available.
    [Show full text]